314 G. K. GILBERT — CRESCENTTC GOUGES ON GLACIATED SURFACES 



ruptive scar discussed in this paper. The incongruity is heightened by the 

 fact that it might with propriety have been applied to another disruptive 

 scar, the chatter-mark, which also affects glaciated surfaces and is also 

 usually crescentic. In view of this infelicity of nomenclature, I have 

 seriously considered the use of "lunoid furrow," a name given by 

 Packard* to a feature probably, but not surely, identical with Cham- 

 berlin's "crescentic gouge." Packard's description, supplemented by 

 a description by Hitchcock, f is so indefinite that Chamber lin cau- 

 tiously refrained from correlation; but the only definite obstacle to 

 correlation is a cross-profile by Hitchcock in which the relation of steeper 

 and gentler slopes is reversed. If the case were one in which priority 

 had weight, I should make the argument for correlation and use Pack- 

 ard's name; but the instance clearly falls outside the field of prior- 

 ity, and it unfortunately happens that the connotation of Packard's name 

 renders it quite as inappropriate as Chamberlin's. Not only is the 

 feature not a furrow, in the sense of having been plowed, but there is an- 

 other feature of glacial sculpture, that which in this paper is called a 

 groove, to which the name furrow might be applied with much propriety. 

 The third alternative, to introduce a new name, I have avoided for 

 various reasons. A really apt name does not occur to me, and it is pos- 

 sible that foreign studies of the feature, of which I have no knowledge, 

 have provided an acceptable name. So I have followed the nomenclature 

 of the first paper known to me which clearly distinguishes the principal 

 types of disruptive scars of glacial origin. 



*American Naturalist, vol. 1, p.. 265* 



tGeology of New Hampshire, vol. 3, pt. 3, p. 182. 



